Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog

Climate of Fear

Posted by: Dr. Jeff Masters, 16:15 GMT le 18 avril 2006

An opinion piece titled, "Climate of Fear: Global-Warming Alarmists Intimidate Scientists Into Silence" appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, criticizing the "iron triangle" of of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers responsible for raising the alarm over the threat posed by global warming. The article's two main points:

1) Climate scientists who are raising alarms over global warming are exaggerating the danger in order to get funding.

2) "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis."

I'm not familiar with the scientists Dr. Lindzen discusses who have lost their funding because they are greenhouse skeptics, and he does not provide any quotes or references to support this point. So, to keep this discussion shorter, I will only focus on his first argument--that climate scientists are exaggerating the threat of global warming in order to get funding.

Who is Richard Lindzen?
First, a little background on the author. Dr. Richard Lindzen is Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, a member of the National Academy of Sciences panel of experts that advises the President on climate change science, and was a lead author of the most recent UN-sponsored Climate Assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that is used as the "official" benchmark of the expected amount of climate change this century. He has written many excellent and highly regarded peer-reviewed scientific papers during a career spanning over 40 years.

Much of his recent work has focused on climate change. Dr. Lindzen hypothesizes that global warming will not increase Earth's temperature significantly because increases in upper-level cloud cover will result from increased thunderstorm activity, and this increased cloud cover will act to reflect away more incoming sunlight, cooling the planet. This "Iris Effect" is named after the ability of the human eye to control the amount of light entering the eye by changing the diameter of its iris. His theory is difficult to prove or disprove, as the water vapor-cloud feedback is one of the hardest things to get right in climate models, and is a key source of uncertainty in them. To my knowledge, his Iris theory has not been disproven, but is thought to be incorrect by most climate scientists.

Dr. Lindzen continues to champion his Iris Effect theory, and has been one of about ten famous outspoken "greenhouse skeptics" who are skeptical of the dangers posed by climate change. He opposes the Kyoto Protocol and efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. He has testified in front of Congress multiple times, authored many opinion pieces on the matter, and been a paid consultant for major oil and coal companies. In Ross Gelbspan's 1998 book, The Heat is On, the author discusses a 2-hour interview he did with Lindzen. In the interview, Lindzen estimated that he made $10,000 per year doing consulting work, and typically charged $2500 per day to fossil fuel interests. For example, a trip to Washington D.C. in 1991 to testify in front of a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, a $400 million coal consortium. Gelbspan describes Dr. Lindzen as "exceedingly gracious and hospitable" in person, but relates several instances of unwarranted attacks he has made on scientific opponents.

Some good points
Dr. Lindzen's essay is a typical example of greenhouse skeptic writing, which unfortunately for me, I've read a lot of. Intermingled are scientific truths, scientific distortions, difficult to verify accusations, and some legitimate nuggets of complaint, all wrapped in a fiercely emotional tirade intended to sway the emotions of the reader. Several of Dr. Lindzen's concerns in his article are valid ones. For instance, he complains of "repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change", which is a concern of mine, as well. A single extreme weather event, or an even a series of extreme hurricanes in one ocean basin during a single year, are not valid indicators of climate change. Lindzen also criticizes the world's most prestigious scientific journals, Science and Nature, for bias against papers by global warming skeptics. This bias is difficult to prove or disprove, but I believe there is probably some substance to this claim. I've seen a number of complaints that ring true about this from the greenhouse skeptic scientists.

Some bad points
While Dr. Lindzen is an excellent scientist, the piece he wrote for the Wall Street Journal is written in emotional, not scientific language. The article contains oversimplifications, distortions, and errors, and would fail the scientific peer review process needed to be published in a scientific journal. Let's look at three of these problems:

1) Dr. Lindzen refers to the "barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century." I would hardly characterize our recent warming as "barely discernible." By measures such as the significant warming of the Arctic in recent decades, the several-week increase in the growing season and early arrival of Spring over most of the globe in recent years, the widespread retreat of glaciers worldwide, and the significant die-off of coral reefs worldwide due in part to record warm sea surface temperatures, a one-degree increase in global temperature is very discernible.

2) Dr. Lindzen says that global warming will lead to a decrease in extratropical cyclones. However, this is not a consensus view among climate scientists. Some model results have shown a decrease, but other models show that global warming will increase the intensity and frequency of El Nino events, which would lead to an increase in extratropical storms over the North Pacific and western U.S. Global warming may also increase the positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) pattern, creating increased extratropical storms in the North Atlantic and Western Europe.

3) Lindzen criticizes arguments by other researchers that global warming will increase hurricane intensities thusly:

"The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more
storminess with global warming."

I asked Dr. Andrew Dessler, a professor at Texas A&M University whose research focuses on climate change and water vapor, to comment on this. He responded:

The rate of evaporation from the surface, which is one determinant of the strength of a hurricane, is determined by (q*-q), the difference between saturation specific humidity and the specific humidity. You can convince yourself that this makes sense by thinking of the two limits: if the air is saturated, then q*=q and evaporation is zero, which makes sense since saturated air cannot hold any more molecules. If the air is extremely dry, then q is about 0 and evaporation
is at a maximum, again as you'd expect.

The climate, on the other hand, is sensitive to q in the mid-troposphere. There's not really a simple explanation for this. I can give you a few good references if you want to check this out further (e.g., Held, I. M., and B. J. Soden, 2000: Water vapor feedback and global warming. Ann. Rev. Energy Environ., 25, 441-475).

Lindzen's argument ignores the differences and suggests that if q*-q decreases at the surface, then q must decrease in the mid-troposphere. That argument is so far outside the realm of scientific reasonability or common sense, that it's my opinion that Lindzen is acting as a policy advocate rather than a scientist. Like most advocates, he takes advantage of the lenient rules of policy debates (e.g., no peer review or other vetting mechanism to test for scientific accuracy of arguments), to make patently false scientific arguments as a way to advance his preferred policy position (he opposes any policy to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions).

Alarmism
Dr. Lindzen claims that "Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes." The words "alarm" or "alarmist" or "anti-alarmist" appear 16 times in the editorial, and Dr. Lindzen is clearly trying to provoke an emotional reaction against those Chicken Littles guilty of raising the alarm.

Speaking as an atmospheric scientist, I can tell you from long experience that we are not the wild-eyed, alarmist lot that Dr. Lindzen makes us out to be. This makes for some very dull parties (if you're not excited about discussing quasi-geostrophic theory), when we get together for a big bash. Very little alarming behavior takes place. (In fact, after I dragged my wife to three straight devastatingly dull departmental Christmas parties while I was in graduate school, she forbade me from ever requiring her to go to another.) Atmospheric scientists are not an alarmist lot--put us in quiet room with a window and give us a computer and pile of data to analyze, and we'll be as happy as a clam at high tide. Atmospheric scientists are generally not motivated by money--they selected science as a career out of a genuine curiosity about how the world works, plus a desire to help understand the significant dangers posed by pollution and climate change. If more money to do research really was a primary concern, wouldn't these scientists stop calling for action against global warming, and instead emphasize the uncertainties and claim that more research is needed?

Dr. Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeler at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, posted this response to Dr. Lindzen's accusations that scientists feed alarmism to get funding: "Lindzen has frequently claimed that within the scientific community "alarm is felt to be essential to the maintenance of funding". I have yet to see any empirical evidence of this, and a brief perusal of active NSF grants related to climate change reveals a lot of interesting projects but none that jump out as being 'alarmist'. Having sat on panels that decide on funding allocations and as a reviewer of proposals for both US and international agencies, my experience has been that these panels actually do a very good job at deciding which proposals are interesting, tractable and achievable. I have not seen even one example of where the degree of 'alarmism' was ever a criteria in whether funding was given. (NB. I don't regard my own grants (viewable here) as remotely 'alarmist' and I don't have too much trouble getting funding (fingers crossed!))"

Environmental scientists have in the past issued false alarms over environmental problems that did not materialize as expected. However, we should expect and tolerate some degree of false alarms, given the uncertainty in forecasting these events. If our scientists never issue a false alarm, then the tolerance for issuing alarms is not correct. Would you expect the National Weather Service to stop issuing tornado warnings when a possible tornado signature is spotted on Doppler radar, since less than half of these signatures result in in an actual tornado touchdown? No, some degree of false alarms must be tolerated. The NWS forecasters are dedicated public servants, doing their job of warning the public when their best scientific judgment indicates that there might be a significant threat. It is no different with our climate scientists who issue warnings on the dangers of climate change.

Skeptics commonly like to claim that atmospheric scientist "Chicken Littles" in the 1970s warned that the next ice age was coming. While there were some articles in the popular press about this, the scientific literature never made such a claim. This is one of the myths perpetuated by the greenhouse skeptics that crumbles under analysis.

A Public Relations Campaign?
Dr. Lindzen's article appeared at about the same time as similar op-ed pieces by syndicated columnists Robert Novak (April 3) and George Will (April 2). A large number of additional anti-global global warming editorials have appeared in the opinion pages of many newspapers in the past week, including the Washington Times, Detroit News, and Arizona Star. Given Dr. Lindzen's history of accepting consulting money from the fossil fuel industry, it would be no surprise if his article was paid for by the fossil fuel industry as part of an orchestrated public relations campaign that included the appearance of all these op-ed articles. I am sure the industry is very concerned about the recent media attention on global warming that has hurt their position. Scientific studies published this year showed unexpectedly large amounts of melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. A cover story last month in Time magazine headlined, "Be Worried. Be Very Worried", warned that we may be at the "tipping point" for uncorrectable climate change. A episode of 60 Minutes reported that scientific reports on climate change written for Congress were being modified by a White House chief of staff, who changed key phrases of the reports to make climate change appear less threatening (the staffer in question has since resigned to go work for Exxon Mobil). James Hansen of NASA and many scientists working for NOAA and NASA have complained of being gagged by the Bush Administration on climate change issues in recent months. It would be an obvious move for the fossil fuel industry to mount a PR campaign this month to try to push back.

The fossil fuel industry has spent tens of millions of dollars on many such campaigns in the past. The most notorious of these campaigns was launched in 1991, when the Information Council on the Environment (ICE), a creation of a group of utility and coal companies, launched a PR campaign whose goal was to "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact". The campaign targeted "older, less-educated men" and "young, low-income women" in electoral districts who had a congressperson on the House Energy Committee. The PR campaign hired four "greenhouse skeptic" scientists--Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer, Robert Balling, and Sherwood Idso--to generate op-ed pieces, broadcast appearances, and newspaper interviews. Gelbspan writes: "The plan was clever if not accurate. One newspaper advertisement prepared by the ICE, for example, was headlined: 'If the earth is getting warmer, why is Minneapolis getting colder?' (Data indicate that Minneapolis has actually warmed between 1 and 1.5 degrees Celsius in the last century.)" Another print ad featured a cowering chicken under the headline "Who Told You the Earth Was Warming...Chicken Little?"

Environmental groups do their share of public relations campaigns, as well. One recent estimate I saw put the spending of the five major environmental groups on climate issues at about $2.1 million per year (Environmental Defense Fund, NRDC, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, and the World Wildlife Federation). Exxon Mobil alone spends over $1 milion per year to fund think tanks like the Competive Enterprise Institute and the George C. Marshal Foundation that generate frequent anti-global warming reports (Gelbspan, 2004).

Flashback to 1974
On June 28, 1974, Sherry Rowland and Mario Molina, chemists at the University of California, Irvine, published the first scientific paper warning that human-generated chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) could cause serious harm to Earth's protective ozone layer. They calculated that if CFC production continued to increase at the going rate of 10%/year until 1990, then remain steady, CFCs would cause a global 5 to 7 percent ozone loss by 1995 and 30-50% loss by 2050.

They warned that the loss of ozone would significantly increase the amount of skin-damaging ultraviolet UV-B light reaching the surface, greatly increasing skin cancer and cataracts. The loss of stratospheric ozone could also significantly cool the stratosphere, potentially causing destructive climate change. Although no stratospheric ozone loss had been observed yet, CFCs should be banned, they said. At the time, the CFC industry was worth about $8 billion in the U.S., employed over 600,000 people directly, and 1.4 million people indirectly (Roan, 1989).

Critics and skeptics--primarily industry spokespeople and scientists paid by conservative think tanks--immediately attacked the theory. Despite the fact that Molina and Rowland's theory had wide support in the scientific community, these handful of skeptics, their voices greatly amplified by the public relations machines of powerful corporations and politicians sympathetic to them, succeeded in delaying imposition of controls on CFCs for over a decade. Scientists who advocated CFC controls were accused of being alarmists out to get research funding. One CFC industry magazine stated in 1975, "The whole area of research grants and the competition among scientists to get them must be considered a factor in the politics of ozone" (Roan, 1989).

DuPont, which made 1/4 of the world's CFCs, spent millions of dollars running full-page newspaper advertisements defending CFCs in 1975, claiming there was no proof that CFCs were harming the ozone layer. The chairman of DuPont commented that the ozone depletion theory was "a science fiction tale...a load of rubbish...utter nonsense." (Chemical Week, 16 July 1975). The aerosol industry also launched a PR blitz, issuing a press release stating that the ozone destruction by CFCs was a theory, and not fact. This press release, and many other 'news stories' favorable to industry, were generated by the aerosol industry and printed by the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Fortune magazine, Business Week, and the London Observer (Blysky and Blysky, 1985). The symbol of Chicken Little claiming that "The sky is falling!" was used with great effect by the PR campaign, and appeared in various newspaper headlines.

The CFC industry companies hired the world's largest public relations firm, Hill & Knowlton, who organized a month-long U.S. speaking tour in 1975 for noted British scientist Richard Scorer, a former editor of the International Journal of Air Pollution and author of several books on pollution. Scorer blasted Molina and Rowland, calling them "doomsayers", and remarking, "The only thing that has been accumulated so far is a number of theories."

Sound familiar?

In a 1984 interview in The New Yorker, Rowland concluded, "Nothing will be done about this problem until there is further evidence that a significant loss of ozone has occurred. Unfortunately, this means that if there is a disaster in the making in the stratosphere we are probably not going to avoid it." The very next year, all the "Chicken Little" scientists were proved right, when the Antarctic ozone hole was discovered. Human-generated CFCs were indeed destroying Earth's protective ozone layer. In fact, the ozone depletion was far worse than Molina and Roland had predicted. No one had imagined that ozone depletions like the 50% losses being observed by 1987 over Antarctica were possible so soon. Despite the continued opposition of many of the skeptics, the Montreal Protocol, an international agreement to phase out ozone-destroying chemicals, was hurriedly approved in 1987 to address the threat. By 2003, it appeared that the ozone hole had stopped growing, thanks to the quick action. Molina and Rowland were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1995. The citation from the Nobel committee credited them with helping to deliver the Earth from a potential environmental disaster.

Conclusion
According to Wikipedia's biography of Richard Lindzen:

The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now." Climatologist James Annan, who has offered multiple bets that global temperatures will increase, contacted Lindzen to arrange a bet. Annan offered to pay 2:1 odds in Lindzen's favor if temperatures declined, but said that Lindzen would only accept a bet if the payout was 50:1 or better in his favor. No bet occurred.

I would agree with Dr. Lindzen, there is about a 50:1 chance that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now. This would most likely occur as a result of a major volcanic eruption that would put up enough stratospheric aerosol dust to cool the climate for a few years. The effect would be temporary, and the Earth would go on warming as before once the dust dissipates.

Climate scientists are not alarmists out to get research funding. They are raising the alarm because they see a genuine major threat to the planet. Dr. Lindzen's voice needs to be considered, because he is a good scientist looking at the same data as the "alarmist" scientists, and is coming up with a different conclusion. But consider that his voice, and voices of the 10 or so famous "greenhouse skeptics", are in the extreme minority. Their voices are greatly amplified by the public relations machinery of the fossil fuel industry, and the politicians sympathetic to them. Thus, it seems like there is more of a scientific controversy than there really is. As a society, we need to decide--do we do the same thing we did for the ozone depletion crisis? Do we take the 50:1 odds, betting on the dark horse because some very loud voices are urging us to do so? Or is it smarter to bet on the favorite?

We got very lucky with the ozone hole. The lifetime of CFCs in the atmosphere is a few tens of years, and the quick action to eliminate emissions has kept ozone destruction from reaching severe levels. Carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere hundreds of years, and 25% of what we add stays there essentially forever. By the time it is obvious we are severely damaging the planet, it will be too late to avoid much of the damage.

Jeff Masters

My next blog will be Thursday or Friday, to give people time to comment on this one.

For further reading
The climate scientists who run realclimate.org have an interesting discussion on the op-ed piece by Dr. Lindzen, as well the one by George Will and Robert Novak. I also wrote an opinion piece titled, The Skeptics vs. the Ozone Hole, which presents a more complete comparison of how the skeptics attacked the science of ozone depletion and succeeded in delaying CFC emission controls for many years.

References

Blyskal, J., and M. Blyskal, "PR: How the public relations industry writes the news", William Morrow and Co., New York, 1985.

Gelbspan, Ross, The Heat is On, Perseus Books, Cambridge, MA, 1998.

Gelbspan, Ross, Boiling Point, Perseus Books, Cambridge, MA, 2004.

Roan, Sharon L., Ozone Crisis: The 15-year Evolution of a Sudden Global Emergency, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1989.

Categories: Climate Change

Permalink | A A A

Top of Page

Reader Comments

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200

Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 51 - 101

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 — Blog Index

51. newt3d 20:03 GMT le 18 avril 2006
Certainly an interesting blog -- or at least a conversation starter. I think atmospheric science is a difficult field in that it's very tough to PROVE anything. Many of the current problems in the field are complex and open to interpretation. Financial motivations aside, two scientists who have spent their entire lives studying meteorology can review a study of global warming and reach completely opposite conclusions ... As far as my thoughts on carbon dioxide linked to global warming ... I consider the following to be facts: 1. Carbon Dioxide absorbs in the infrared and is considered a "greenhouse gas". 2. Greenhouse gases, in theory, lead to warmer global temperatures. 3. Carbon Dioxide emissions and measured global temperatures have risen since the onset of the industrial revolution. Drawing conclusions from these "facts" isn't so easy. There is some evidence that carbon dioxide levels are temperatures are correlated (ice core studies), but it's difficult to say if there is a causal relationship. The greenhouse gas theory states that temperatures should rise given more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but there are many other things that could compensate or exacerbate this effect (increase in cloud cover, chemical reactions, etc). Personally, I don't think there's any conclusive evidence of a link between global warming and carbon dioxide, because that would be very, very difficult to come by. I do, however, think that releasing carbon dioxide in mass quantities into the air should be done with great caution. A big problem with this debate is that there's no good resolution to it. Let's say that there's a 50% chance that the global warming alarmists are correct and that no corrective action is taken. Let's further hypothesize that current carbon dioxide emissions will cause a 5 degree rise in ocean temperatures, which will cause more hurricanes and a sea level rise of 5 feet. This will cause a lot of destruction measured in trillions of dollars. On the other hand, let's say that carbon dioxide is not a leading cause of global warming and corrective action is taken by limiting fossil fuel use. This will cost trillions of dollars to industry for no reason. So, which action is right to take? By the way, this should be taken with a grain of salt. I only have an atmospheric science minor from MIT (no PHD), Professor Emanuel was my advisor, I worked on a project with Professor Lindzen, and nobody paid me for this opinion. Member Since: 6 octobre 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 85

52. VentusMaximus 20:13 GMT le 18 avril 2006
There was an excellent article in Scientific American (How Did Humans First Alter Global Climate?; Scientific American Magazine; March 2005; by William F. Ruddiman) The gist of the article � if you don�t want to pay to read the whole thing � is that humans have been altering the Earth�s climate for the past 8,000 years. I have noticed many people mention that we can�t �kill the planet� and that humans only constitute a speck on this planet. It�s true that even if we tried to kill the planet we would have little impact on a geological scale. Come back in 500 million years and try to find evidence that humans were ever here. It would be difficult. What we are doing to the planet is making it much more difficult for 6 billion plus people to survive. The planet will go on. We may not. At least not as a civilization we might recognize.

53. Inyo 20:18 GMT le 18 avril 2006
I think that we are already seeinh the effects of weakening extratropical systems Not in California! For the last 2 years we have been slammed by record storms (so-cal did have an extended dry period... but during that time the storms were still around, just hitting Seattle). It seems like we're breaking all kinds of rainfall records. California's climate is extremely variable, but i think we can count out weakening storms in that area, at the moment. and NONE of this was influenced by El Nino to any noticable effect... last year was a very weak el nino, this year is a moderate la nina. It will be interesting to see what the storms do next time we have a moderate or strong El Nino here! I can see how warming northern areas would decrease the temperature differences that create tornados, though. Member Since: 3 septembre 2002 Posts: 42 Comments: 765

55. Scotth 20:20 GMT le 18 avril 2006
SickO - well said. Vent - Are you saying then that this could even be a government conspiracy to thin the population? Member Since: 4 août 2004 Posts: 0 Comments: 11

57. F5 20:23 GMT le 18 avril 2006
newt3D, It is a bit of a conundrum. However, add the following to the mix and see why it's even worse. Knowing that the earth goes through numerous warming and cooling phases, what if you spend all the money required to reduce emissions, and still have no impact on the warming, because it is part of a natural cycle of variability. The best you can hope for at this point, is continued research in hopes of arriving at the answer(s). If for no other reason than past history, humans have shown two remarkable traits. 1) Adaptability and 2)Rational capacity of thought - For these two reasons, I believe that at some point we will come across the answer, whether through sheer hard work, divine inspiration, or sheer dumb luck. Then, through our incredible capacity to construct devices to improve our lot in life, we will develop the technology to effect whatever changes we need to to help adapt to the changing climate.

58. F5 20:25 GMT le 18 avril 2006
jeffB, Yes of course, let's put Dr. Hansen above reproach. He couldn't possibly have any self-interest involved. He's so smart so therefore he couldn't possibly be exaggerating or even lying. No, George Deutch and the other administrators at NASA must ALL be lying. After all, George Deutch doesn't have a college degree, that makes him suspect. Never mind the links to the actual NASA memos. If that no college degree holding Deutch said it, it must be a lie. Nice reasoning.

59. snowski 20:26 GMT le 18 avril 2006
CFCs indeed have been shown catalytically to decompose ozone in the lab through free radical mechanisms. It has been postulated, but never proven, that a similar reaction occurs in the stratosphere. JeffB (perhaps inadvertently) has proposed an experiment to test whether this reaction happens on a large scale. If we sent a number of KC-135 tankers into the stratosphere loaded with Freon-12 (or another suitable CFC) and then released the Freon, we then should detect a localized decrease in the ozone concentration, if the theory is correct. Unfortunately this experiment--which would provide objective evidence of CFC damage to the ozone layer--has never been done. It simply stretches credibility to extrapolate chemical reactions in the lab to the entire stratosphere, and in the absence of direct experimental evidence we should remain skeptical about this theory.

60. VentusMaximus 20:29 GMT le 18 avril 2006
Scotth, I'm not saying that there is a government conspiracy at all. I'm just commenting that people seem to be worried about what human's are doing to the planet as if we were hurting Mother Earth. I'm just pointing out that human's will be the ones to suffer. Not the planet. The Earth will rebound. I think we will to but in a fashion that we can't predict and wouldn't recognize.

61. RL3AO 20:34 GMT le 18 avril 2006
this will go triple century

62. Scotth 20:35 GMT le 18 avril 2006
If memory serves me right, CFC's will break down ozone butthey will do it at a temperature similar to summertime conditions (obviously, I don't remember the temperature, I just remember its a warm temp like 80 degrees or something). So, does the stratosphere have the kind of temperature necessary to break down CFC's? Its all part of the big equation, boys and girls, and every parameter must be taken into consideration. That's what's not happening in these so called experiments. Member Since: 4 août 2004 Posts: 0 Comments: 11

63. Scotth 20:46 GMT le 18 avril 2006
Vent - Actually, I was pulling your leg about the conspiracy thing. But who's to say that a human "rebound" that we can't even comprehend would be a bad thing? Change is the hardest thing for humans to accept so naturally, everyone thinks that if humans DID survive, that it would be a horrible existence...maybe not. Again, just an opinion...but an interesting thought to ponder. Skyepony - No comments? You strike me as an intelligent person. What's your take on all this? Member Since: 4 août 2004 Posts: 0 Comments: 11

64. snowboy 21:01 GMT le 18 avril 2006
hey F5, good to hear from you. I see you're still unimpressed by the predictions of greenhouse gas induced global warming which are coming from our best global climate models developed by our best global climate scientists, and preferring to revel instead in the remote possibility (loudly promoted by the US admin and major corporate interests) that they've all got it all wrong. It is interesting how the arguments have been evolving: - in decades gone by, it was argued that there was no evidence of warming so the models must be wrong (ignoring the effects of the nuclear test induced cooling); - now that the warming can't be overlooked, it is argued that it is all natural; - at what point F5 would you concede that a warming of the world's climate was caused by greenhouse gas emissions? A further 2 degrees C rise in the next 50 years? 5 degrees? 10 degrees? I'd love to hear your answer, as most of the doubters I've met say that no matter how much things warmed they'd NEVER concede that it had anything to do with greenhouse gas emissions. So what is your position? Member Since: 21 septembre 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 2546

65. Inyo 21:01 GMT le 18 avril 2006
what if you spend all the money required to reduce emissions, and still have no impact on the warming, because it is part of a natural cycle of variability. Oh no! Then, we won't be stuck getting involved nearly as often in Middle East politics and wars, we won't be held slave to a few corporations driving up the price of oil, we won't have to pillage Alaska or the West to find enough fuel to survive, and the air over LA will not be a soup of Carbon Monoxide. You're right.. that will really suck! And that's just if you are correct that Greenhouse Warming isn't happening.. something that i believe less and less as time goes on. Member Since: 3 septembre 2002 Posts: 42 Comments: 765

66. VentusMaximus 21:09 GMT le 18 avril 2006
Scotth, Sorry, I didn't get the jest. Personally, (I and I know this sounds frakked up) I'm all for Global Warming. Humans need a good kick in the ass like they got back in the 1200s when the plague ravaged the planet. Sucked to live then but it did produce - largely - the Renaissance. So I'm hoping that history repeats itself - doesn't it always? After GW has reduced the human population and radically altered our civilization we'll be ready to grow up. Isn't that how it works in most SciFi stories? Star Trek comes to mind. We suffered through a limited nuclear war in their fictional history and arrived on the other side all the better for it. Works for me. :-)

67. snowski 21:09 GMT le 18 avril 2006
Inyo, Let's be technically correct here. The air over LA isn't a soup of carbon monoxide--if it were, everyone would be dead. In fact it's a soup of partially oxidized hydrocarbons: alcohols, ethers, aldehydes and ketones. To me it smells like an organic lab. I like that smell in the lab, but when I walk outside, I want to breathe clean air.

68. Dr. Jeff Masters, Director of Meteorology (Admin) 21:15 GMT le 18 avril 2006
Posted By: snowski (68.15.247.132) at 4:26 PM EDT on April 18, 2006. CFCs indeed have been shown catalytically to decompose ozone in the lab through free radical mechanisms. It has been postulated, but never proven, that a similar reaction occurs in the stratosphere. Research flights conducted by Dr. Susan Solomon of National Center for Atmospheric Research in the 1980s flew through the Antarctic ozone hole. These flights measured a very strong anti-correlation between ozone concentrations and chlorine monoxide (which results almost exclusively in the stratosphere from CFC break down). This was deemed as good enough proof that CFCs were destroying ozone. Thanks for all the intelligent comments, everyone! Jeff Masters

69. Inyo 21:21 GMT le 18 avril 2006
well relatively speaking the air over LA contains much more CO than most other areas, thus the phrasing 'soup'. Obviously it isnt the dominant gas in the atmosphere or yes, we would be dead. And today it is a breezy spring day and the air is actually pretty clean. but yeah, certainly all that other goop is in there too and tons of particulates Member Since: 3 septembre 2002 Posts: 42 Comments: 765

70. Dr. Jeff Masters, Director of Meteorology (Admin) 21:32 GMT le 18 avril 2006
Posted By: stevation (70.58.97.157) at 2:47 PM EDT on April 18, 2006. Dr. Masters wrote: the significant die-off of coral reefs worldwide due to record warm sea surface temperatures I'm not a scientist, but didn't I hear some news recently that there isn't consensus on what's causing the coral die-offs? It seems like there were other theories besides warmer sea temperatures, and I think a major study is going on in Australia about this, from what I heard. Anyone else know about that? You're right, I changed my wording to "in part" by record warm sea surface temperatures. Coral reefs are also dying off from pollution, over fishing leading to algae explosions, and dynamite fishing. Last summer's record warm SSTs in the Caribbean were particulary devastating to corals there, however. Jeff Masters

71. Scotth 21:50 GMT le 18 avril 2006
Well, its getting about that time to head home for the day. I would like to leave you with this thought though...this was one of the more interesting discussions on here lately..and do ya'll know why? Because it was intelligent conversation and thought. No one was bashing anyone and everyone seemed to respect each others opinion. Hey Dr. M - You should submit this to the virtual plethera of scientists who are busy stabbing each other in the back. They say if you put enough monkeys in a room and gave them each a typewriter, they would eventually write a novel. Well, if you put all these scientists in a room (and told them they couldn't fight and they HAD to listen to each other), maybe they could come with something solid. It could happen...see ya'll tomorrow. Member Since: 4 août 2004 Posts: 0 Comments: 11

72. silence9 22:06 GMT le 18 avril 2006
Michalp -- concerning catalysts and equilibrium points -- one must not mistake a reaction's not occuring in a given set of conditions (in the absence of a catalyst) with it being at equilibrium. Eg.) Hydrogen and Oxygen's chemical equilibrium point relative to their combution product (water) favors water by a mile. But under normal conditions, without a catalyst, one could safely keep oxygen and hydrogen in the same container without fear of reaction for as long as you like.

74. SBKaren 22:35 GMT le 18 avril 2006
I'll be watching that NOVA - I love that show....heck I love PBS. Talk about reality TV! Member Since: 21 février 2005 Posts: 191 Comments: 14191

75. jeffB 23:03 GMT le 18 avril 2006
If memory serves me right, CFC's will break down ozone butthey will do it at a temperature similar to summertime conditions (obviously, I don't remember the temperature, I just remember its a warm temp like 80 degrees or something). So, does the stratosphere have the kind of temperature necessary to break down CFC's? Its all part of the big equation, boys and girls, and every parameter must be taken into consideration. That's what's not happening in these so called experiments. I think you're misremembering: http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/part3.html Member Since: 8 juillet 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 40

76. F5 23:04 GMT le 18 avril 2006
Hey snowboy, Revel? I'm not sure that is the word I would use to describe my position on the subject. What I find interesting is that because my position happens to coincide with those of a (relatively)conservative government and major corporate interests, that there is somthing sinister about the whole thing. First off, who is to say that those researching climate science are our "Best" scientists? They may be among the best in their field, but that doesn't make them the best scientists. Secondly, even the "best" scientists make incorrect assumptions, test hypotheses that are wrong, etc, the vast majority of the time vs actually getting it right. That doesn't make them bad scientists of course. But the batting average of even your best scientists would generally be considered pretty poor. And that's just the nature of science. The more complex it is, the more likely that you will be wrong the vast majority of the time. As for the models, they may be the "best" models that we have, but that also doesn't make their output correct. The assumption that they know and understand all the inputs and the complex interactions. Even the latest model runs indicate a 2deg rise in global surface temperature, whereas only a 1deg increase has even occured, assuming that the measurements are accurate, and that is also questionable. Land-use alterations have made a significant change to the surface temperature measurements. Those measurements are part of the input into the models. Since you don't have static conditions, how could you possibly compare them with any degree of confidence that there are no factors that have influenced those readings. As for what it would take for me to be convinced that the emission of greenhouse gases is responsible (or primarily responsible) for "global warming", I can't really answer that. There is too much uncertainty regarding the entirety of climate science and climate change, to say with any definitive statement that if X occurred, I would agree that Y was the cause. Clearly, each day brings new understanding, both of what we know and what we know we don't know. One would assume that given continued research, our understanding will continue to improve. When I feel comfortable that we've taken into account all the factors and that all the complex interactions have been accounted for in a consistent, reproducible, and verifiable way, then I might change my mind. In the meantime, as I've said repeatedly, we should come together on those things we DO agree on, including reducing pollution, finding alternative energy sources, etc.

77. DAVIDKRZW 23:05 GMT le 18 avril 2006
if you have not yet do so come to my blog and vote

78. F5 23:09 GMT le 18 avril 2006
Inyo Oh no! Then, we won't be stuck getting involved nearly as often in Middle East politics and wars, we won't be held slave to a few corporations driving up the price of oil, we won't have to pillage Alaska or the West to find enough fuel to survive, and the air over LA will not be a soup of Carbon Monoxide. You're right.. that will really suck! And that's just if you are correct that Greenhouse Warming isn't happening.. something that i believe less and less as time goes on. Could you be any more histrionic? Yes, we don't believe AGW because we simply want to kill people through wars, pollution, and not having any more resources. There, I said it. Our secret agenda is out in the open. I hope you happy now.

79. Steve21 23:10 GMT le 18 avril 2006
I always enjoy reading Dr. Masters' WunderBlog. It's interesting and quite educational for me. This latest WunderBlog titled "Climate of Fear" really smacks me of arrogance and greed by the few who benefit by keeping most everyone else in the dark on matters of global warming. The same holds true of the CFC emissions debate, and even cigarette smoking hazards. I think the key to getting to the truth in any matter is to remove the greed and profit factors. We need to hold people and businesses directly accountable for what they say, especially when people distort the truth or straight out lie for personal gain or profit. When they purposely confuse the public -- at the expense of everyone's future health and welfare -- it should not only be a crime, but we should be able to sue them for everything they profited from. Maybe that will stop the greed and allow us to address these serious problems more scientifically. It seems history is repeating itself yet again, and this time we will live with the problem for centuries. Thanks Dr. Masters. Your analysis makes perfect sense. Now if only the politicians and the people see things the same way, things might change for the better sooner rather than later.

80. Inyo 23:37 GMT le 18 avril 2006
Posted By: F5 at 11:04 PM GMT on April 18, 2006. Inyo Oh no! Then, we won't be stuck getting involved nearly as often in Middle East politics and wars, we won't be held slave to a few corporations driving up the price of oil, we won't have to pillage Alaska or the West to find enough fuel to survive, and the air over LA will not be a soup of Carbon Monoxide. You're right.. that will really suck! And that's just if you are correct that Greenhouse Warming isn't happening.. something that i believe less and less as time goes on. Could you be any more histrionic? Yes, we don't believe AGW because we simply want to kill people through wars, pollution, and not having any more resources. There, I said it. Our secret agenda is out in the open. I hope you happy now. I KNEW IT! Member Since: 3 septembre 2002 Posts: 42 Comments: 765

81. Inyo 23:42 GMT le 18 avril 2006
but on a more serious note... i wasnt disagreeing with your opinion that human-caused warming is not occurring. I can respect that opinion, though i do not agree. I was disagreeing with your 'oh no, what if we have to spend money to stop using oil' comment... i think that even if greenhouse warming is 100% false, we should begin transitioning to more sustainable fuels as soon as we can, for various other reasons... i thought you felt the same way but the last comment implies otherwise.. no one reasonable is suggesting we immediately dump all internal combustion engines while our country grinds to a halt and we all starve to death. I drive like most other people on here, and I don't plan on dumping my vehicle in the nearest ditch or anything. I just think we arent moving towards the goal of new energy sources nearly as fast as we should. Member Since: 3 septembre 2002 Posts: 42 Comments: 765

82. grizzled 00:07 GMT le 19 avril 2006
Scary - look at the latest sea temperature anomaly. Link

84. Inyo 00:24 GMT le 19 avril 2006
hmm.. is that La Nina regrouping or making its last stand? Member Since: 3 septembre 2002 Posts: 42 Comments: 765

85. snowboy 00:39 GMT le 19 avril 2006
Folks, I'd urge you all to read the actual article which Dr. Masters is responding to. If this is the best that a leading scientist on the doubters' side can come up with, then the debate about global warming is already over. Dr. Lindzen's "Climate of Fear" article is mighty short of science, but features a grand conspiracy theory in which legions of cowed doubting scientists are struggling bravely against an overpowering "alarmist gale" and are being silenced by an "iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates, and policy makers". Except for its length, the Lindzen article would not be out of place in some of the blogs in the WU world - though I've seen far better here (eg. Snowfire's tour de force on the global warming issue, various posts on Fshhead's blog, and also some of the posts from the doubters' side by the likes of F5 and Califonia). I would have hoped for far more out of a senior scientist in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal. Thanks Dr. Masters for drawing it to our attention, and for your detailed response to it. Member Since: 21 septembre 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 2546

87. F5 00:50 GMT le 19 avril 2006
Inyo, My bad. I misunderstood what you were saying. I do agree that we should be researching and funding alternative energy sources, for a variety of reasons. I just don't put AGW as one of them. As for how fast, well, you know there are two primary drivers for change. 1. Changes in resource availability 2. Economic factors. We don't really have an issue with #1. We do have an issue with #2. If the price of gasoline rises to certain levels, people will simply start to cut back on their driving. They may sell inefficient vehicles for more fuel-efficient ones. Companies will begin putting more money into research for alternatives if they see a big payoff, etc. It's pretty much impossible to force change, but change will happen when the factors come together.

88. snowboy 00:50 GMT le 19 avril 2006
wow grizzled, things are warming fast.. maybe if the shear relaxes some more I'll see my predicted end of April first named tropical system. Member Since: 21 septembre 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 2546

89. DAVIDKRZW 00:54 GMT le 19 avril 2006
Link her is a update on shear eeek!

90. michalp 00:58 GMT le 19 avril 2006
Hydrogen and Oxygen's chemical equilibrium point relative to their combution product (water) favors water by a mile. But under normal conditions, without a catalyst, one could safely keep oxygen and hydrogen in the same container without fear of reaction for as long as you like. or until you had a spark. That would be a highly volatile mix. If you kept them in the same container, chances are that container would eventually explode. I don't think you realize what you are saying.

91. F5 00:59 GMT le 19 avril 2006
snowboy, As I pointed out in one of my previous posts, and you did here as well but I think you missed your own point...This is an op-ed piece, not a scientific paper. The intended audience was the readers of the Wall Street Journal, not the readers of Science, Nature, etc. Dr. Master's himself did point out that Dr. Lindzen is a well respected researcher and scientist. From Dr. Master's own post... First, a little background on the author. Dr. Richard Lindzen is Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, a member of the National Academy of Sciences panel of experts that advises the President on climate change science, and was a lead author of the most recent UN-sponsored Climate Assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that is used as the "official" benchmark of the expected amount of climate change this century. He has written many excellent and highly regarded peer-reviewed scientific papers during a career spanning over 40 years. Now to say that because of something he wrote in an op-ed piece directed towards layman as being "unscientific" and full of conspiracies, that he somehow isn't credible is just plain wrong. As to the idea that there aren't people/organizations working in exactly the way he describes, it would be ludicrous to suggest that doesn't occur. I absolutely believe it does occur. Perhaps not in some X-Files kind of grand conspiracy, but given the right people in charge at the right places, you could certainly see on a small scale how it could be true. Or do you only believe the conspiracy is on the Bush Administration and the Big Oil crew? This feeling that because scientists supposedly are working for "our" benefit that they are totally altruistic and beyond reproach is not only wrong, but a highly troubling point of view. We should view everything science does with a skeptical eye. Science should be used to serve man, not man used to serve science.

92. Snowfire 01:13 GMT le 19 avril 2006
Notice the warm pool setting up in the north Pacific again--look for a repeat of last year's storm track pattern. Member Since: 29 juin 2005 Posts: 24 Comments: 300

93. TheSnowman 01:19 GMT le 19 avril 2006
Jeff AMAZING BLOG!!!!! So Detailed Just Amazing

94. silence9 01:22 GMT le 19 avril 2006
michalp, In fact, I chose that example precisely because it is seemingly counter-intuitive. The reaction of burning hydrogen is highly exothermic and therefore self sustaining once started, but without that initial push of a spark (or a lesser amount of energy in the presence of a catalyst) the reaction will NEVER start on its own (at standard temperature and pressure).

95. snowboy 01:23 GMT le 19 avril 2006
hey F5, even in an op ed piece I'd have tried for a bit of science. You know just to persuade people that the conspiracy which was out to get me was unjustified and wrong. Also, F5, I am not positing the existence of a conspiracy which is behind the global warming "doubter" scientists. There is no need to. It is all out in the open (on both sides). The "doubter" scientists are few in number but have the support of the carbon-based industries, much of the US right-wing side of the spectrum, and the US admin. The "believer" scientists are large in number, have the support of most environmental organizations, much of the US left-wing side of the spectrum, as well as the governments of most of the rest of the 1st world. What makes Dr. Lindzen's article so comical is that he mistakes the fact that people disagree with his position with some conspiracy to silence "his" side of the debate. Given the amount of attention he a the few doubter scientists are getting, that's risible. Member Since: 21 septembre 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 2546

96. snowboy 01:27 GMT le 19 avril 2006
eek is right, DavidKRWZ, we may just see that April tropical system forming! Member Since: 21 septembre 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 2546

97. Inyo 01:29 GMT le 19 avril 2006
I guess i have an issue with rising gas prices if i feel that the profits are going just to the oil companies... although i agree it will encourage less use of oil. I just am of the mind that its better not to wait until we see big decreases in oil availability. I guess we just agree on where the 'tipping point' of change is. on a more topic-related note, I just read an interesting (but old) paper on climate change in the Sierras. Apparently there have been many small glacial advances associated with cooler and wetter conditions, and glaciel retreats/decrease in meadow areas associated with warmer and drier conditions. It seems that in the past the Sierras in particular have had two phases: cold/wet and warm/dry. It seems like if anything, we may be entering a 'warm-wet' phase in the Sierras which would be something that has not happened recently. (The Sierras are one of very few places where glaciers have been reported as ADVANCING... and after this year's record snowpack, it looks like that trend will continue at least for a while). It just reiterates my belief that California will not be a good place to judge human-caused climate change.. its just too variable. We seem to be entering a period of more extreme weather... but we had a similar one in the late 1800s. neat stuff Member Since: 3 septembre 2002 Posts: 42 Comments: 765

98. Inyo 01:31 GMT le 19 avril 2006
agree = disagree, sorry Member Since: 3 septembre 2002 Posts: 42 Comments: 765

100. louastu 01:39 GMT le 19 avril 2006
I just read this article. Link

101. snowboy 01:42 GMT le 19 avril 2006
I know this is heresy for you Americans, but why on earth would your government not raise gasoline and other carbon-based energy taxes? It would encourage energy conservation, encourage investment in alternative (untaxed) energy sources, and for sure the money could be used to help cover your huge federal budget deficit.. Member Since: 21 septembre 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 2546

Viewing: 51 - 101

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 — Blog Index

Top of Page

New Comment

Community Standards Policy Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

About JeffMasters